Everywhere one looks one finds pink ads, pink attire, pink hats, pink tennis shoes, pink teas – yes The Republic of Tea makes a Sip for the Cure. The Race for the Cure has become the cause celebre for the nation. A recent perusal through an Oprah Magazine found fourteen pages of ads for the politically correct event. The Susan G. Komen Foundation is proclaimed on radio commercials, seen in huge displays in shopping malls and their pink ribbons decorate buildings all over town. Has there ever before been a more comprehensive marketing campaign?

On October 2, 2005, Denver, Colorado’s Clear Channel radio, 9 News and Safeway will sponsor this year’s Race for the Cure to raise funds for a cure for breast cancer.The participating women are highly motivated to find a cure for the dread disease, who can blame them?

In the recent past, however, a growing body of evidence has been amassed, linking breast cancer and the most avoidable risk factor for it: abortion. Onecan study the statistics and come to one’s own conclusions, but the data found on www.abortionbreastcancer.com is pretty convincing.

The Susan G. Komen Foundation lost a board member, Eve Sanchez Silver, because of her concern over the foundation giving funds to Planned Parenthood, the largestprovider of abortion in the nation. Not only is Eve asking, “Why aren’t women being told?” she also wants to know why Planned Parenthood targets people of color with itspolicies. Her concerns can be found at www.pinkmoney.org.

Asking tough questions doesn’t bother Eve. What bothers her is the silence in the U.S. media. Taking her cause to Australia has revived fresh interest for her message, where ithit a brick wall in her own nation.

When the truth begins to seep out of the bulwark standing against it, the racer’s anger will begin to simmer. They will demand to know why some pretty important informationwas withheld from them.

As early as 1986, government scientists wrote a letter to the British Journal Lancet acknowledging that abortion is a cause of breast cancer. They wrote, “Induced abortionbefore first term pregnancy increases the risk of breast cancer,” Lancet 2/22/86 p.436.

Aborting one’s first pregnancy - when the breast’s cells are changing from non-milk producing to those able to sustain life – apparently leaves the cells in a vulnerable state to toxins, leading to a serious increase of one’s risk for developing breast cancer later in life.

As the ABC link’s strongest proponent, Joel Brind PhD explains, “So full term pregnancy is protective; it lowers breast cancer risk. But if that pregnancy is cut off artificially somewhere in the middle after some weeks or months, she has far more cells in her breasts that are capable of proliferation, and that have proliferated, than she did at the beginning of the pregnancy, which translates statistically into a higher chance of getting breast cancer later in life.”

Why does giving grants to the organization which may be most responsible for the dire increase in breast cancer rates since Roe v Wade make any sense? Why doesmainstream media insist on a media blackout about the most relevant topic to women’s health today? Why do editors routinely ignore the queries begging them to reveal the truth? Do they believe women can’t handle the truth?

Absent that, all the pink attire, buttons, and tennis shoes in the country won’t restore health while one of the main causes of disease is denied. All the running and racing for a cure will never happen as long as women go against nature, destroy their progeny and the beautiful functions for which their bodies were incredibly designed.

Keep the color pink for the time when women rediscover, with perfect joy, their majestic endowment as life givers.

Until that day is embraced and renewed, the colors of October shall remain naturally those of falling leaves.